What are some debatable accounts of history? - Page 19

On February 11 2011 05:12 Kipsate wrote:
The fact that Hitler is considered more evil then others is because the west cares less about them(not to sound offensive). The Jews talk alot about the Holocaust while China still reveres Mao and Russia neither hates nor loves Stalin.

Also, history is written by the victor, no suprise there.

On February 11 2011 05:12 Kipsate wrote:
The fact that Hitler is considered more evil then others is because the west cares less about them(not to sound offensive). The Jews talk alot about the Holocaust while China still reveres Mao and Russia neither hates nor loves Stalin.

Also, history is written by the victor, no suprise there.

On February 11 2011 04:53 Treemonkeys wrote:


It's not a question of did japan deserve it, but how it is presented in US history.

On February 11 2011 05:16 PiousMartyr wrote:


I thought the controversy was caused because Japan attacked before they declared war.

The US has embargos placed on several countries that they aren't at war with. They prevent many goods from entering Cuba, stop people from trading luxury goods and weapons to North Korea, and stop Iran from obtaining nuclear equipment. An embargo is a hostile action, but it's not a act of war.

Japan was invading many countries just to expand it's borders and execute it's "divine right". They had no right or reason to attack China or any other country, and the US wanted them to stop. Denying Japan oil was one of their ways to slow down Japans military.

I do agree with you that Pearl Harbor is often presented as 100% random and unexpected, but both countries were becoming militarized and there was a lot of tension between them. War wasn't entirely unexpected, but a massive attack without a of war was.

On February 11 2011 04:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:

China deserved to be declared war on.
YELLOW RIVER FLOOD (1938)

During the Sino-Japanese war, as Japanese forces moved west towards the railroad junction of Chengchow, there to meet up with other Japanese units advancing on Hankow, the Chinese Nationalists blew up the flood dykes of the Yellow River. The resulting flood inundated three provinces and forty-four counties. Between four and five thousand villages and eleven towns were flooded. A total of 3,911,354 people were displaced. Altogether 893,303 lives were lost through drowning. The Chinese Nationalists blamed this atrocity on the Japanese.

If that's not enough for you, you can brush up on your pre-Mao era Chinese history here.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

Then you'll realize that China killed, literally, more of it's own citizens than Japan ever did.

On February 11 2011 05:16 PiousMartyr wrote:


I thought the controversy was caused because Japan attacked before they declared war.

The US has embargos placed on several countries that they aren't at war with. They prevent many goods from entering Cuba, stop people from trading luxury goods and weapons to North Korea, and stop Iran from obtaining nuclear equipment. An embargo is a hostile action, but it's not a act of war.

Japan was invading many countries just to expand it's borders and execute it's "divine right". They had no right or reason to attack China or any other country, and the US wanted them to stop. Denying Japan oil was one of their ways to slow down Japans military.

I do agree with you that Pearl Harbor is often presented as 100% random and unexpected, but both countries were becoming militarized and there was a lot of tension between them. War wasn't entirely unexpected, but a massive attack without a of war was.

On February 11 2011 05:19 mcc wrote:

Because two wrongs make right ? And how is oil embargo in any way provocation that justifies war ? Also in your example you are trying to justify Japan attacking China by using episode that happened after the war started, really ?

As for American actions in WW2, yes they committed atrocities, yes they killed civilians unnecessarily, but nothing compared to the scale of German or Japanese killings. Not even mentioning that the war was started by Germany and Japan and their aggression was definitely not justified in any way.

On February 11 2011 05:00 RoosterSamurai wrote:

The Chinese and Japanese had been at war for THOUSANDS OF YEARS prior to this. Anyone can see that the United States only allied with China to try and keep the Japanese in check (just as we've done with the South Vietnamese, South Koreans, and Afghans). If America were truly so holier-than-thou and actually cared about Human well-being they wouldn't have allied a country that killed millions of it's own citizens just because. The Chinese and Russians killed FAR MORE INNOCENTS THAN THE NAZIS EVER DID.

On February 10 2011 13:59 TheGiftedApe wrote:
http://www.1421.tv/

1421, china discovers america

the evidence is extremely thin, especially since a lot of chinese records from this era were destroyed.

you can watch the documentary here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7722602442889799648#

On February 11 2011 05:27 mcc wrote:

That is very misleading statement, nazis were in power for like 12 years. Russians has been around for few hundred. That makes your statement true but pretty worthless. If you meant Soviet Union I would love to see some numbers on that, but it is maybe possible, since it is still 70 years against 12. But if you are claiming that Soviets caused the death of more people between 1933-1945 than I think you are mistaken.

The Chinese and Japanese had been at war for THOUSANDS OF YEARS prior to this. Anyone can see that the United States only allied with China to try and keep the Japanese in check (just as we've done with the South Vietnamese, South Koreans, and Afghans). If America were truly so holier-than-thou and actually cared about Human well-being they wouldn't have allied a country that killed millions of it's own citizens just because. The Chinese and Russians killed FAR MORE INNOCENTS THAN THE NAZIS EVER DID.

On February 11 2011 04:28 Igakusei wrote:


What happened to AA flight 77?

On February 11 2011 05:05 Elegy wrote:
It's a recurrent theme amongst Europeans (although Americans certainly do this as well, probably even more) that, when pointing out the crimes of other nations, universally avoid little old Belgium and her...adventures...in the Congo. Not a dig on Europeans, but Belgium is repeatedly ignored or looked over when it comes to mentioning Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc.

On February 11 2011 05:15 RoosterSamurai wrote:

I think the reason for that is because (according to articles and papers I've read,) Americans generally considered the Asians to be "sub-human." Which is rather sad, in my opinion, but it explained why they cared less about it, and why Americans habitually stole body parts off of fallen Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese soldiers during their respective wars, but never did so to the Germans.

On February 11 2011 05:06 RoosterSamurai wrote:

So, then you concede to my point? The Americans provoked the Japanese in a passive manner and baited them into attacking the US (Resulting in Pearl Harbor,) and then acted like it was some random act of aggression, and used it as leverage to bullhead their way into WWII.

On February 11 2011 05:32 mcc wrote:

Belgium's colonial story is actually pretty well known, but frankly it is similar to the story of all colonial powers in Africa, just more fucked up.

On February 11 2011 05:33 brain_ wrote:


I disagree -while there was an element of racism, to be sure, I think that those things were done/tolerated because those wars were far more brutal and "uncivilized". Germans generally didn't brutalize American bodies/prisoners, Japanese did.